Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

I've noticed that there's a general consensus that the movie should be based on Byrne's Man of Steel reboot or the post crisis era in general, and the movie's been rumored to be based on it anyway. But I wonder if it's the only valid path.

Does Lex have to be a businessman? Clark the real person/Superman the disguise? Does everyone really believe that Lex as a scientist and not a businessman and Clark as a disguise is outdated and incapable of being used in a modern interpretation?

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

I'm open to Lex as both a businessman and scientist/inventor, but what if he were just a scientist/inventor? Would you give the movie a chance as long as there was a chance that it had an interesting plot and plenty of action?

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

I have the feeling that there's going to be yet another furious "Pre-Crisis Vs Post-Crisis Superman" argument, but honestly I agree with the original poster. There's no reason why we can't have elements from all of Superman's interpretations in the movie.

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite

I've noticed that there's a general consensus that the movie should be based on Byrne's Man of Steel reboot or the post crisis era in general, and the movie's been rumored to be based on it anyway. But I wonder if it's the only valid path.

Does Lex have to be a businessman? Clark the real person/Superman the disguise? Does everyone really believe that Lex as a scientist and not a businessman and Clark as a disguise is outdated and incapable of being used in a modern interpretation?

There is no general consensus on that or much of anything involving Superman because there is such a fierce schism within the Superman fanbase. You can talk to two people who both say they love Superman and they will not agree on a single thing, and often disagree in a very nasty way. Any number of arguments I myself have had with Byrne/Post Crisis shippers as I defend Siegel and Shusters original vision and what it grew into is proof positive of that. Geoff Johns is trying in the comics to make a version that draws from the best of all the eras and if Nolan will use a similar tactic if he handles Superman like he handled Batman. As much as Byrne's character made me sick, there is an idea or two from that era I am willing to accept as long as the classic Superman elements are also present. I won't apologize-if I could have a Superman movie made exactly to my specifications then it would be pure Bronze Age with some of the Golden Age elements mixed in and not apologetic at all, which I feel too many superhero movies are. But it's not and I expect any smart filmmaker (and Nolan is one of the smartest) to use any elements that work for their story and make the character work.

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

Maybe I'm wrong, but atleast around here, it seems like the Byrne shippers are the majority. There's a poll for which Lex they should use in the movie, and businessman Lex has a pretty big lead. I guess there's no way of knowing if those who voted Lexcorp Lex are post crisis fans in general, but that's what I'm going on, plus the fact that I've followed these boards for a while.

What inspired this topic is someone said that Lois should be tall and athletic because she's a general's daughter. It's the automatic assumption that they'd use a post crisis concept like General Sam Lane that led to the idea that Lois should be army tough.

Overall, I'm in favor of a more pre-crisis interpretation that maybe uses a few post crisis ideas. I dunno, maybe it's because I hate Lois and Clark and that's the show that introduced me to the post crisis stuff, but I'm not a big fan of Lex being some big shot who owns Metropolis or Clark as some beefy hunk that Cat Grant drools over or Lois calling Clark "Smallville". In my mind, it's not classic Superman and it's trying to hard to be hip, sexy, and modern. The true Lex Luthor is a mad scientist, not a businessman who hires scientists and inventors to do all the grunt work for him. That's the character he was for about 50 years and it doesn't seem right to make such heavy changes so late in the game. Same goes for sexy jock Clark. Clark is supposed to be mild mannered, not the most interesting guy in the room, or the hunk all the ladies are drooling over. Everything about it just screams "wrong" to me.

Modernization should be about refining the existing elements of the mythos, not giving them Bizarro-world reinterpretations. Save making Lex president for an Elseworlds. It's just an outlandish concept to shock people and garner sales. If you want a businessman/politician villain, create a new villain.

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite

Maybe I'm wrong, but atleast around here, it seems like the Byrne shippers are the majority. There's a poll for which Lex they should use in the movie, and businessman Lex has a pretty big lead. I guess there's no way of knowing if those who voted Lexcorp Lex are post crisis fans in general, but that's what I'm going on, plus the fact that I've followed these boards for a while.

What inspired this topic is someone said that Lois should be tall and athletic because she's a general's daughter. It's the automatic assumption that they'd use a post crisis concept like General Sam Lane that led to the idea that Lois should be army tough.

Overall, I'm in favor of a more pre-crisis interpretation that maybe uses a few post crisis ideas. I dunno, maybe it's because I hate Lois and Clark and that's the show that introduced me to the post crisis stuff, but I'm not a big fan of Lex being some big shot who owns Metropolis or Clark as some beefy hunk that Cat Grant drools over or Lois calling Clark "Smallville". In my mind, it's not classic Superman and it's trying to hard to be hip, sexy, and modern. The true Lex Luthor is a mad scientist, not a businessman who hires scientists and inventors to do all the grunt work for him. That's the character he was for about 50 years and it doesn't seem right to make such heavy changes so late in the game. Same goes for sexy jock Clark. Clark is supposed to be mild mannered, not the most interesting guy in the room, or the hunk all the ladies are drooling over. Everything about it just screams "wrong" to me.

Modernization should be about refining the existing elements of the mythos, not giving them Bizarro-world reinterpretations. Save making Lex president for an Elseworlds. It's just an outlandish concept to shock people and garner sales. If you want a businessman/politician villain, create a new villain.

This site is mostly made of of people who know very little about comics and those who do follow comics skew much more towards stuff from the last 20 years or so. There is actually a strong amount of disdain towards anyone who defends earlier comics or is a fan of them. I can think of less than 10 fans who post here regularly who know much about comics history or Pre-Crisis comics and defend them. Characters like Barry Allen and Hal Jordan are hated quite a bit here and to defend them is to ask for a negative response. I believe what they call fans of tradition who appreciate older characters and comics "nostalgia douches". So those polls are not surprising. Most of the rhetoric you hear from Byrne-shippers is what they were taught by DC: that anything from the Silver-Age is automatically retarded, that every story was Beppo the Super-Monkey or Jimmy Olsen, Turtle Boy, that Superman's power level was absurd and that Luthor was a stereotypical mad scientist who was out to get Superman because his hair fell out.

Lois has always been tough, don't know if that means she has to be a particular size. Under Siegel and Shuster she was always brave and career-orientated and shared many of the same morals and concerns as Superman. I have no use for General Thunderbolt Lane as it, much like Corporate CEO Luthor is a shameless Marvel rip-off, and jock Clark makes me sick as it represents a complete rejection of Siegel and Shusters Clark, and since Clark represented them, a rejection of them. My ideal Lex is the complex, three-dimensional fallen friend that was brilliantly developed by Maggin, a villain of depth that rivaled Doom or Magneto in his substance, not a hackneyed Kingpin swipe. And yes, I HATE HATE HATE Lois calling Clark "Smallville". I never want to see that again.

And when you mention Bizarro-world reinterpretations, that is EXACTLY what Byrne did as every core concept that made Superman such a huge success for 50 years was stood on it's head as Byrne turned Superman into what I feel was a Colossus/Spider-Man hybrid. The extreme naivete and farmboy angle was cribbed completely from Colossus and the never ending drone of "heartwarming" home scenes with the Kents was ripped off of Spider-Man. So I have to say you are 100% correct in your assessments.

A great piece I read elsewhere goes like this:

Question 1

Superman discovers that Lex Luthor is formulating some plot against him. So he confronts Lex and says:

* A
"Oh, No! You're tricking everybody! I'll never be able to stop you!" (Grabs Lex by throat) "What are you up to now? You'd better tell me, or so help me, I'll..."

* B
"I don't know what scheme you've got going this time, Luthor, but whatever it is - it'll never work." (Hauls Lex off to jail)

Question 2

Superman and Lois head down to the post-office so that he can read his fan mail. When they get there, Superman sees the innumerable sacks of letters and says:

* A
"Oh, No! I'll never be able to read all this mail!"

* B
(Superman reads all the letters in 2.3 seconds at super-speed, using his X-ray vision so that he doesn't even need to open the envelopes)

For each question, if you answered B, you know who Superman is. If you answered A, you must work for DC Comics. Yes, both of the events in the As are from recent issues and serve to illustrate just how poorly DC understands Superman.

Some of Byrne's mistakes have been fixed, but his biggest mistake, the idea that Superman is some sort of insanely naive farmboy boyscout Lil Abner/Lenny/Jethro/Eb kind of hick has stuck for some insane reason. It's insulting to Superman and it's also insulting to rural people. Until this is eliminated Superman will continue to be looked at as a real dork and a loser. Of course Superman is positive and caring and noble and inspirational. What he is not is a fool.

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

this is the post tech boom era. when byrne was writing man of steel, guys like steve jobs and bill gates were just starting and growing their businesses. so i don't see a reason why lex can't be some genius evil mad scientist, but with business savvy.

and unlike lead cenobite i actually liked lois and clark. i dont agree with it completely, but i think there does have to be more of an attraction between lois and clark than what we saw in superman 1. lois and clark did go overboard with a charismatic and "hunky" clark kent... while it made for great innuendo and laughs, it got annoying after the first few episodes. but if the problem, as the studios perceive, is that mainstream audiences see superman as this invulnerable, alien, and unrelatable character, you can't have clark kent fade into the background, because he can bring the human aspect to the character. superman can be the face of hope, strength, and idealism for the people of metropolis. but it's when he's clark kent that we can see him brood about the pressures of power and responsibility, and the messy emotions of every day life.

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

Lex Luthor is a character that benefited from Post-Crisis changes, Superman is not. A mixture of Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis is best, although I think we will be getting a Post-Crisis Superman this time.

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankenmation

I really don't think the the Donner/Reeve movies were the definitive portrayal of Pre-Crisis Superman, there was far more going on in that era than what happened in those films.

I don't think anyone's saying that all they want out of a Superman movie is Pre-Crisis and nothing else, they're just suggesting that it shouldn't be ignored when making the film, that's all.

Pretty much. I don't understand why elements of both can't be blended together. As the starter of the thread said, there's no reason why Lex can't be a businessman and scientist. And I'd prefer the Superman/Clark Kent duality with the latter being more of a persona, or at least Superman/Real Clark Kent or Kal-El/Mild-Mannered Clark Kent.

__________________Everyone brings joy to this forum. Some by coming in. Some by going out...

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sage

As the starter of the thread said, there's no reason why Lex can't be a businessman and scientist.

Exactly. The Lex Luthor of the DCAU started out as a business man but when the Justice League Animated series rolled around they incorporated more of the "mad scientist Lex" in, and it was still great, probably my favourite version of Lex in any media, period. I don't see why that wouldn't work.

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAKŪ

Lex Luthor is a character that benefited from Post-Crisis changes, Superman is not. A mixture of Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis is best, although I think we will be getting a Post-Crisis Superman this time.

MOS is years out of date by this point as they have moved on to a more hybrid version. They would be wise to do so in the movie as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timstuff

We've had 4 pre-crisis Superman movies already. Let's move on and show the general public something a bit more modern, because all they know is pre-crisis.

The movies have no resemblance to the Pre-Crisis Superman at all. If anything they are the precursors of the Post-Crisis version, as Superman was more naive, way more pure and a lot less adult. Also the farmboy thing and the Kansas setting came from the movies, in the Pre-Crisis comics Smallville was in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic area and Clark was not a farm boy as much as he was a kid from a small town. Pa Kent sold the farm and moved into the town to run a general store. Also some of Lois' more comical traits like her inability to spell started in the movies. If they were like Pre-Crisis then Superman would have had a Superboy career, both Kents would have died before he became Superman, he would have been a lot more mature and confident, and of course Lex acted nothing like he did in the comics of the time, as he was a complex character in the comics who was not so much evil as he was obsessed with Superman. Plus had it been like Pre-Crisis he would have known Superman for years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sage

Pretty much. I don't understand why elements of both can't be blended together. As the starter of the thread said, there's no reason why Lex can't be a businessman and scientist. And I'd prefer the Superman/Clark Kent duality with the latter being more of a persona, or at least Superman/Real Clark Kent or Kal-El/Mild-Mannered Clark Kent.

Agree with all of this and even in Pre-Crisis Lex WAS a billionaire businessman and a scientist, he just hid his wealth and his companies under aliases.

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timstuff

We've had 4 pre-crisis Superman movies already. Let's move on and show the general public something a bit more modern, because all they know is pre-crisis.

This is what I'm talking about. The Reeve movies are pre-crisis and pre-crisis isn't modern. The Reeve movies were just Superman movies, they weren't based on any particular era.

This is why I ask: What is inherently more modern about the changes Byrne made? You can take about everything from the pre-crisis comics and write it more maturely and it would be perfectly acceptable. Scientist Lex, disguise Clark, Phantom Zoners and Kara Zor-El galore.

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

Well I think Clark Kent being the real person makes the disguise completely ridiculous.

I've always seen it, however, that there are two Clark Kents. One is the man who works at the Daily Planet who wears glasses, is mild-mannered and a bit clumsy, and the other is the real man who was raised by the Kents in Smallville; only close friends and family get to know this Kent. Then there's Superman, who doesn't differ that much from Farm Kent, just a bit more authorative.

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAKŪ

Well I think Clark Kent being the real person makes the disguise completely ridiculous.

I've always seen it, however, that there are two Clark Kents. One is the man who works at the Daily Planet who wears glasses, is mild-mannered and a bit clumsy, and the other is the real man who was raised by the Kents in Smallville; only close friends and family get to know this Kent. Then there's Superman, who doesn't differ that much from Farm Kent, just a bit more authorative.

So, in essence, you see him similar to Bruce Wayne and his 3 faces? I can see that.

__________________
"Your training is nothing! Will is everything...the will to act!"

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

That's how it should be. With Superman, Clark should be who he thinks of himself as, and both "mild mannered Clark" and "Superman, Man of Tomorrow" should be exaggerated extensions of that.

Occasionally, the two should (and often do) bleed through to the other. Mild mannered Clark could raise his voice just a bit to emphasize he means business on something, much like real people do (it's always surprising when the quiet guy in the group makes a bold statement, and it gets people to pay attention). Superman could easily be a bit less bold when with the elderly or children, so the awesome presence he puts on doesn't overwhelm them.

__________________FASTER THAN A SPEEDING HAMSTER...-----MORE POWERFUL THAN A BOX OF TISSUES...----------ABLE TO LEAP OFF OF TALL BUILDINGS AND HIT THE GROUND...

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

That's how it should be. With Superman, Clark should be who he thinks of himself as, and both "mild mannered Clark" and "Superman, Man of Tomorrow" should be exaggerated extensions of that.

Occasionally, the two should (and often do) bleed through to the other. Mild mannered Clark could raise his voice just a bit to emphasize he means business on something, much like real people do (it's always surprising when the quiet guy in the group makes a bold statement, and it gets people to pay attention). Superman could easily be a bit less bold when with the elderly or children, so the awesome presence he puts on doesn't overwhelm them.

__________________FASTER THAN A SPEEDING HAMSTER...-----MORE POWERFUL THAN A BOX OF TISSUES...----------ABLE TO LEAP OFF OF TALL BUILDINGS AND HIT THE GROUND...

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAKŪ

Well I think Clark Kent being the real person makes the disguise completely ridiculous.

I've always seen it, however, that there are two Clark Kents. One is the man who works at the Daily Planet who wears glasses, is mild-mannered and a bit clumsy, and the other is the real man who was raised by the Kents in Smallville; only close friends and family get to know this Kent. Then there's Superman, who doesn't differ that much from Farm Kent, just a bit more authorative.

Exactly, the comic Superman Birthright handled it this way and i think it's the way to develop the character and showcase his unique personality. It also gives him a way to show different sides of himself depending on who he's around, which would allow the actor to flesh some acting muscles as opposed to the limited amount of character development Clark recieved in SR.

Also i'm of the mindset that once he started gaining his abilities etc being able to see the microscopic makeup of people, read their dna, fly, see untold wonders beneath the ocean, he'd experience character growth beyond that of growing up on a farm. I think he starts out as Clark KEnt raised by the kents, but once the powers come the Kal-el personality starts to come out a bit more. He starts to see the world through alien eyes although filtered through a more human perspective. I think it's that merger of clark (guy he was raised as) and kal-el (his unique alien experience of life on earth with his powers) would allow him to emerge as Superman, the perfect combo of the two. Superman is clark at his heroic best. While i also think the unique viewpoint would result in kind of a science geek personality for clark, he'd be facinated with the things he can do and see.

That aspect of his personality isn't shown to everyone but as Metropolis clark he can let his inner geek shine a little bit and he enjoys it. While as Superman he's all hero, the guy people and trust and rely on. When he relaxed he's a bit of the clark kent that grew up in smallville if he's around his folks or someone who knows his secret, but if he's at the fortress you'd get more of Kal-el, the unique alien parts he can finally let show, and do things that would normally freak people out.

Re: Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

I've never been able to fully understand the concept of Clark Kent being the disguise. If he's been Clark Kent since before he could walk, was raised Clark Kent, and everyone calls him Clark Kent, how can it be a disguise? He found out his birth name was something else, therefore he's no longer Clark? I don't buy it. As far as I'm concerned, Superman's real name is Clark Kent and his real parents are the Kents. Well done on giving birth to him, El family, but you had no hand in raising him or instilling the sense of morals that he uses as Superman.